Good Article on NFLN vs. Cable Companies (1 Viewer)

[Stabmug]

Point 1 is Grade A bullplop. I couldn't pick up the sports page or turn on sports radio last year without hearing ads from the NFLN telling me how Time Warner was depriving me of my right to see Cowboys games. The only amusing thing was that they picked Drew Bledsoe as the pitchman, so I still had to look at him even when he was sitting on the end of the bench."We love you, we want to show you the Cowboys. It's just that awful Time Warner won't let us do that."

Fair enough - I haven't heard them in my locale - yet.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Ehh..I think you're being a little bit shortsighted here. They are trying to maximize their exposure because that exposure maximizes their ad revenue. Several other people have commented on that. It's not that the NFL truly wants more viewers of NFLN for the love of the game. They want their advertisers to pay more because X more people will see it on Basic Cable and that's how ad rates are figured: by eyeballs. Trust me, both sides are being greedy/out for money here. I'd like to go back to something I said that I'm surprised no one commented on: whose greed benefits us more. I just don't see how the NFL making more money helps me very much at all, while Time Warner or Comcast making more money helps me a lot. If they have more money, then it's likely they will either put that extra money back into the company, which should benefit the stock price, or they will increase a dividend payout. Both of these are capital gains for anyone with their stock, whether directly or in a mutual fund. So shouldn't I be happy for TW to try to make the most money they can off the NFL?In fact in my personal situation, I already happily get the Sports Tier. So TW adding it to the Sports Tier wouldn't cost me more money, in theory. So if TW can find a way to get a lot more people to buy the Sports Tier, and make more money as a company, doesn't that benefit me?

Not being short sited. NFL does not want to be in a sports tier because they want more exposure. I'm not arguing the business side of this.From a business, maximizing profit scenario:I understand why CABLE wants to do what CABLE wants to do. They want the channel in a lineup that will help them sell the sports tier to more customers. I underdstand why the NFL wants to do what the NFL wants to do. They want the channel in a lineup that will maximize viewership and therefore revenue.From a customer scenario:I know that I want the NFL Network be in the basic/digital lineup as I'd rather not pay for all the other meaningless sports stations I care not to watch to get it.I know that COMCAST CABLE has screwed with me for years in regards to being a trapped customer and quite frankly, I'm more open to seeing them get the screws handed to them when it comes to their bottom line.Back to the business side of it. I know what motivates the NFL - that seems pretty clear. CABLE is less clear to me. Why is not so clear? I'm not convinced that selling more sports tiers would raise more revenue than placing NFL Network in the basic lineup. With the NFL Lineup in basic everyone is paying for it. With the NFL Lineup in the Sports Tier, only Sports Tier subscribers are paying for it. Which will generate more revenue - NFL Network paid for by all or NFL Network paid for by those new subs to the Sports Tier?As a result, I offer alternative motives for why CABLE is black listing (strong arming) the NFL Network and it has to do with bitter relationships as a result of NFL Ticket and Direct TV.In the end, I find the way Cable is ganging up on the NFL to be a monopolistic response to a protected monopoly. It's the equivalent to price-fixing.Now, would it benefit me to have the Cable Companies do better so their stock price goes up which in turns fattens any money I have invested in that stock whether directly or indirectly? The answer is extremely personal with factors ranging towards what percentage of savings are actually invested in said cable companies to the what the expect rate of return would be if cable got their way with the NFL Network. Now I got to bang that up against my return on investment if cable did not get their way plus add to it my savings on a monthly basis for not paying for the sport tier reinvested at some expected rate of return.Not sure I want to put that formula together, but I can't see this being a big bottomline factor for those companies - it's one channel of how many?My heads hurts now...

LOL, don't want to see your head hurt. Thanks for the response. The only reply I have is an addition to your question of why the cable companies would do this: They need to show Congress that they are moving toward a more customizable cable solution. Again, here is the scenario: Consumers mad with cable companies. We pay too much for a bunch of crap channels we don't want. Cable companies are bad. Congress makes some noise about looking into it. Cable companies say, OK, we'll start putting niche channels into tiers so you don't have to pay for them. And oh, BTW, the first one we can test this on is the NFL Network, which A) is popular enough for us to make some revenue from people buying that tier and B) we want to screw any way because we don't like them. Again, my opinion is that both sides are greedy and at fault, but I have a tougher time defending the NFL's position that it is not a niche channel and should be on basic cable. Basic cable should be CNN, FOXNews, Weather channel, TNT, ESPN, CNBC, etc. Channels with a broad viewership across all demographics. The NFL Network is not a channel like that, IMHO. And yes, I know, neither is Oxygen or the spanish language channel or whatever.So the problem is that we as football fans cannot complain about all the crappy niche channels on basic cable (which we have done for years) and then want to make an exception for OUR niche channel being on basic cable.

 

[Stabmug]

LOL, don't want to see your head hurt. Thanks for the response. The only reply I have is an addition to your question of why the cable companies would do this: They need to show Congress that they are moving toward a more customizable cable solution. Again, here is the scenario: Consumers mad with cable companies. We pay too much for a bunch of crap channels we don't want. Cable companies are bad. Congress makes some noise about looking into it. Cable companies say, OK, we'll start putting niche channels into tiers so you don't have to pay for them. And oh, BTW, the first one we can test this on is the NFL Network, which A) is popular enough for us to make some revenue from people buying that tier and B) we want to screw any way because we don't like them. Again, my opinion is that both sides are greedy and at fault, but I have a tougher time defending the NFL's position that it is not a niche channel and should be on basic cable. Basic cable should be CNN, FOXNews, Weather channel, TNT, ESPN, CNBC, etc. Channels with a broad viewership across all demographics. The NFL Network is not a channel like that, IMHO. And yes, I know, neither is Oxygen or the spanish language channel or whatever.So the problem is that we as football fans cannot complain about all the crappy niche channels on basic cable (which we have done for years) and then want to make an exception for OUR niche channel being on basic cable.

I hear you on that. Two responses come to mind... One - if you want to 'try it out' find a niche I'm not a part of to do it with. Two - do it all at once - I'm not sure what you learn and it's not fair to the NFL Network to do it just to them for starters.BTW - head is all better now.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

LOL, don't want to see your head hurt. Thanks for the response. The only reply I have is an addition to your question of why the cable companies would do this: They need to show Congress that they are moving toward a more customizable cable solution. Again, here is the scenario: Consumers mad with cable companies. We pay too much for a bunch of crap channels we don't want. Cable companies are bad. Congress makes some noise about looking into it. Cable companies say, OK, we'll start putting niche channels into tiers so you don't have to pay for them. And oh, BTW, the first one we can test this on is the NFL Network, which A) is popular enough for us to make some revenue from people buying that tier and B) we want to screw any way because we don't like them. Again, my opinion is that both sides are greedy and at fault, but I have a tougher time defending the NFL's position that it is not a niche channel and should be on basic cable. Basic cable should be CNN, FOXNews, Weather channel, TNT, ESPN, CNBC, etc. Channels with a broad viewership across all demographics. The NFL Network is not a channel like that, IMHO. And yes, I know, neither is Oxygen or the spanish language channel or whatever.So the problem is that we as football fans cannot complain about all the crappy niche channels on basic cable (which we have done for years) and then want to make an exception for OUR niche channel being on basic cable.

I hear you on that. Two responses come to mind... One - if you want to 'try it out' find a niche I'm not a part of to do it with. Two - do it all at once - I'm not sure what you learn and it's not fair to the NFL Network to do it just to them for starters.BTW - head is all better now.

LOL, good. Can't disagree with the sentiment, but I'm sure cable people would argue that they need to test it first. Which would probably be a grain of truth covered in bull ####. Good talking to you.

 

[Stabmug]

Good talking to you.

Likewise.